₦airaland Forum

debosky: It's been interesting reading through the responses here, and I have to say I admire people for attempting to explain their views on this contentious issue.

A few comments:

@ Image

If a question has two parts separated by an 'AND', you CANNOT claim to have answered the question fully by only answering one part.

As for the moments you've claimed Goshen was 'dishonest', (regarding the specific instructions) I think his aim was really to get an answer from you on whether God ever gives specific instructions and not whether he ONLY gives specific instructions. I may be wrong, but that's how I read it.

With regards to 'anti-tithers' 'inserting' the word 'only' into tithes, if you do make that claim, then you need to show, within the law/instructions, where tithes encompassed items other than those specified in Leviticus 27. Simply referencing a person saying he gives a 'tithe of all I possess' isn't sufficient as evidence. We do not know what constitutes this 'all' - we do not know if this person was simply a farmer, or a shepherd, or a carpenter. If we knew for example, that he was a carpenter who didn't own flock or farms, then we could confidently conclude that people did tithe beyond what was detailed in Lev 27.

The real question would be [size=15pt]why did God specify the items he did[/size] and omitted others? If the 'common practice' deviated from the specific instruction, do you place greater weight on 'common practice' or the instruction?

We cannot move away from seeking God's instructions - the Pharisee's twisted God's law on the Sabbath to imply you shouldn't help people out on the Sabbath, but that was an individual's/group's interpretation. That may have been 'common practice', but that doesn't make it right in any way.

Finally, on the issue of Jesus receiving tithe, is it the same tithe (with specific requirements in Lev 27) that Jesus is receiving or another tithe? How does Jesus receive this tithe, when the only people to receive tithes were Melchizedek and the OT priests?

Image123: Act 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were s[/b]o.
Again, i want to plead that we all be like this noble Berean christians. Let's search for ourselves whether those things being said are so. This attitude of anti-tithers brotherhood is uncalled for. Anything and everything posted against tithes or a pro-tither is taken warmly and 100% by all. that's unneeded. Let's be sincere and honest. let's see things for ourselves. just like recently i said "@Goshen
You're one funny brother. The one i asked you to look for in all the versions and languages, you dodged artfully. The one i no send you, na hin you paste. [b]If God permits, before Tuesday i should answer your questions5 to my satisfaction. Meanwhile, eat the patient roll." For God's sake, Before Tuesday is Saturday, Sunday and Monday. i planned to go somewhere today, and i'm not sure how chanced i might be tomorrow. That's why i said before Tuesday. But i later did not go where i wanted as prior-planned. But to come in and see every anti-tither celebrating and all stating what i never said, it's bad, it's bad. that's one reason i keep on hammering on sincerity. Look at what you all made of my statement, and how you all stood by one anotherr defending what i did not say, and NONE of you could point out the fact?
Goshen: Am just waiting for Tuesday bro. No more no less.We should just wait for Tuesday. You guys should just be patient please and let's wait till Tuesday. WE ALL SHOULD HAVE PATIENT, TUESDAY IS AROUND THE CORNER. Thank y'all. Me just dey wait for Tuesday to come. Am counting days, Tuesday is around the corner for Image123 to come out OPENLY. Just counting my time till Tuesday and dats all that matters for now.
Nuclear: Your adversary would have run off long before Tuesday! We are all keeping the thread alive as if we refuse to answer, he'll just walk away (which he will presently do anyway)!
Kunle: Whilst we are waiting for image to return from his pilgrimage i would just like to share this scripture i came across whilst studying the scriptures this morning:

Well, to other matters.
5e) God gave the Levites the tithe of israel FOR their service to God, not because He excluded them from owning land.

Numbers 18:21 And, behold, I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they serve, even the service of the tabernacle of the congregation.
Here is the chief reason why God gave the Levites the tithe. i've told you that they had land and cities. They were not to have an inheritance among the children of Israel, because of their special calling. It doesn't say they were not to have an inheritance, or not to have land or build houses. god was their inheritance and He gave them cities to dwell in. These cities were not in the air or on water. Why do you always want the letter of the law above the spirit on these issues?
Lev 25:32 Notwithstanding the cities of the Levites, and the houses of the cities of their possession, may the Levites redeem at any time.
i showed you Joses a Levi had land in the NT, you downgraded him as one violating the command of God. There are instances also in the OT where a Levite owned land.
Act 4:36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
Act 4:37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
Joses was not condemned, but surnamed the son of consolation. i do not condemn any Levite or one in a Levitical class from owning property or building.

In Hebrews 7, the writer was showing us that Jesus Christ is a greater HighPriest than any one in the Levitical priesthood.
Heb 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such a high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
This is what the whole of Hebrews is about, about Jesus Christ being greater and better than any other; than angels, than Moses, than Aaron, than Abraham, than any. It's an apologia for the new testament. It's not an harp about weightless issues like tithes. How you all miss thatt and say it's not talking about Jesus is amazing. The whole of the OT is talking about Jesus, how much more the NT! The writer makes His point for Jesus' superiority over the OT by bringing together Abraham(the father of the Jews), and Levi(the Father of the old testament/covenant priesthood). And pointing out that someone(Melchisedek) is greater than them, and that Jesus is of the order of Melchisedek, therefore greater than Abraham and the OT priesthood.
Melchisedek answers to Christ, not the other way round.
Heb 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.


Heb 7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:
The Levites "have a commandment to take tithes", not "had" but "have". Evidently, tithe taking was still in practice during the time of the early christians, and they did not object it or argue against it. Instead, the fact was used to make a salient point for the Lordship of Jesus.


Heb 7:6 But he whose descent is not counted from them receiv[b]ed[/b] tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
The tense there is in the past, it's referring to when Abraham gave tithe to Melchisedek. He is a descendant of Levi but He received tithe, even from Abraham and Levi. that proved his superiority to Abraham and Levi. It doesn't say that 'he is not eligible to receive tithes' and some other nonsense you guys have been making up. The verse/passage did not deny his eligibility to receive tithe. Heb 7:7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. . Instead, He is shown to be better and greater than Levi, thereby making Christ to be greater and better than them, because Christ is of the order of Melchisedek.
Heb 7:8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
Here, men that die receive tithes. That's continuous, not a past thing. BUt there HE RECEVETH THEM. HE RECEIVETH them, not 'HE received' them. If it was 'HE RECEIVED THEM', of course, there's agreement that it's referring to Melchisedek. But 'He RECEIVETH THEM'. WHo is receiving them. How can it be Melchisedek? Does that even make sense at all? The bolded question is not rhetorical, please answer. Does it make sense at all for Melchisedek to still be receiving tithes in the present continuous? How, and from who does he receive tithes? Who's giving tithes to Melchisedek, that we can say Melchisedek receiveth them? It is Christ Jesus that receiveth them. let's look at some of your translations. None of them directly says that Melchisedek receiveth tithes.

Heb 7:8 from different translations below:

Hebrews 7:8
Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
8 Those priests get a tenth, but they are only men who live and then die. But Melchizedek, who got a tenth from Abraham, continues to live, as the Scriptures say.
DOESN'T SAY MELCHISEDEK RECEIVES TITHE.

Hebrews 7:8
Amplified Bible (AMP)
8Furthermore, here [in the Levitical priesthood] tithes are received by men who are subject to death; while there [in the case of Melchizedek], they are received by one of whom it is testified that he lives [perpetually].
NOTE THE BOLDED, they are RECEIVED BY ONE, (NOT they are RECEIVED BY MELCHISEDEK)

Hebrews 7:8
GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
8 Priests receive a tenth of everything, but they die. Melchizedek received a tenth of everything, but we are told that he lives.
DOESN'T SAY MELCHISEDEK RECEIVES TITHE.

Hebrews 7:8
Good News Translation (GNT)
8 In the case of the priests the tenth is collected by men who die; but as for Melchizedek the tenth was collected by one who lives, as the scripture says.
[size=30pt]Again, the tithe was collected by One, this One is Jesus not Melchisedek.[/size]

Hebrews 7:8
The Message (MSG)
8-10Or look at it this way: We pay our tithes to priests who die, but Abraham paid tithes to a priest who, the Scripture says, "lives." Ultimately you could even say that since Levi descended from Abraham, who paid tithes to Melchizedek, when we pay tithes to the priestly tribe of Levi they end up with Melchizedek.
Here, the MESSAGE Bible reads the popular meaning into the text, in a sincere attempt to bring the message to us.

8 Priests receive a tenth, even though they are only men who live and then die. But Melchizedek, who received a tenth from Abraham, continues living, as the Scripture says.
what version is this BTW? DOESN'T SAY MELCHISEDEK RECEIVES TITHE.

Hebrews 7:8
New Living Translation (NLT)
8 The priests who collect tithes are men who die, so Melchizedek is greater than they are, because we are told that he lives on.
DOESN'T SAY MELCHISEDEK RECEIVES TITHE.

Hebrews 7:8
Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE)
8Here, priests take their tenth, but they are people who will die one day. But Melchizedek, who took his tenth, never dies. The holy writings say it is so.
DOESN'T SAY MELCHISEDEK RECEIVES TITHE.


(ASV) And here men that die receive tithes; but there one, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
DOESN'T SAY MELCHISEDEK RECEIVES TITHE. SAYS ONE


(Darby) And here dying men receive tithes; but there one of whom the witness is that he lives;
DOESN'T SAY MELCHISEDEK RECEIVES TITHE. SAYS ONE


(WEB) Here people who die receive tithes, but there one receives tithes of whom it is testified that he lives.
DOESN'T SAY MELCHISEDEK RECEIVES TITHE. SAYS ONE

Who is this ONE that receives even into the future, cos no one's giving tithe to Melchi at present.

Heb 7:8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
The ONE of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. Who on earth is WITNESSED that He liveth, Melchisedek? NO. It's the Lord's Christ.

Rom 6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
2Corinth 13:4 For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you.
Heb 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them
Rev 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive forevermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
4 scriptural witnesses. FOUR proving that Christ is the one that liveth forever more. There's no witness to bear out Melchisedek, except of course Melchisedek is Christ, as 'some scholars' have thought. there goes scriptural proofs that witness the One who liveth to receive my tithes and make intercessions for me.
NOW, to the law.

KamiLara: @Goshen360
@Zikkyy

Dog my cats! It's sad as a hound dog's eye, reading the barking(s) up the wrong tree

Image123: ANS: God gave the Levites the tithe of israel FOR their service to God, not because He excluded them from owning land. Goshen!
i don't really get your 'exclusion from not owning land' bit. The Levites had CITIES to dwell in. They were to fully concentrate on God's service, and not to busy themselves with sowing and harvest like other tribes. That's the part/bit that i know. But and if you insist, we are new testament christians and not subject to 'do not own land' laws. Acts 4.36,37 [/b]Joses was a Levite and a new testament christian. He owned land and even sold it. There's no such condition of which you speak, at least not in the NT which i operate in. Be 'berean christians' guys, not just winners of points and arguments. Truth hurts less with time.
[b][size=15pt]All the questions had been soundly answered. So NEXT UP, explanations.[/size]

Image123: @Goshen
You're one funny brother. The one i asked you to look for in all the versions and languages, you dodged artfully. The one i no send you, na hin you paste. If God permits, before Tuesday i should answer your questions5 to my satisfaction. Meanwhile, eat the patient roll.

Goshen360: @ Image123,

Do you want me to give a rebuttal to each of the things you raised from Q1-4? Yes or No

Because I simply do not see all this running around the matter, trying to cover-up from the heresy you said about Heb.7:8 openly before God and the whole world(God's people). Do you want me to comment on your recap? Yes or No?

Image123: The bolded is why i quoted where you guys danced around without answering the straight questions asked. Again, are these my accusers?

Image123: Meanwhile, just to tell my friends to remove the log in their eyes before accusing others. i'm not referring to correctness or wrong of the answer. But the complete irrelevance and dodge of the answers given makes one wonder, "are these my accusers". Kunle and Goshen were major culprits in this.

Image123: @Goshen
You're one funny brother. The one i asked you to look for in all the versions and languages, you dodged artfully. The one i no send you, na hin you paste. If God permits, before Tuesday i should answer your questions5 to my satisfaction. Meanwhile, eat the patient roll.

nuclearboy: Seems whenever we reply Image, he uses that as an excuse to move away from what's important and is in front of him! Maybe its better to just sit back and enjoy this show of shame!


Else why all the re-quoting and frantic manouvers! EVEN a question specifically addressed to Debosky got attention (even if confused) while the real issues are hidden from!

Very funny! And the other MOGs are now logging out to sneak in to read this thread wonderful

mabell: THis sounds like frank edward on who wants to be a millionaire
We are at the stage where we use lifelines, call a friend, ask a friend or 50-50.
So which did you apply goshen!

newmi: Ok l am particularly interested in your answer l don't want to think that you are insinuating the possibility of you adopting a defence mechanisim by using Joe as a conditional variable upon which your answer is depended on if you have the answer prove it and leave all this gimmicks and fore-play is it a sin or not. Thank you

mabell: @GOSHEN
Stop this manipulation you are doing,you simply don't have an answer to the question
maybe its hard for you to say.
stop beating around the bush jare!

newmi: Well you have really been patient if you chose to take a leave l don't think it would elicit any complaints but for me am particularly interested in the answer from Goshen because its important he answers in absolute terms either yes or no at that point we can determine the direction this discussion will take.

Joagbaje: The guy knows he is boxed in from every side . Wetin hin go do na?

nuella2: Goshen why don't you answer his question since he has answered your own.

Joagbaje: Ive answered you . Stop being a coward bros. you are not honest that's alll. You tried everything to avoid the answer. You tried quarrel , you've tried derail , you've tried abuses, your last bullet is question for question. I answered you . But you're not a man of your word. You simply lack what is called honor.

Goshen360: JOAGBAJE,

1. IF A CHRISTIAN BELIEVER GOES TO WAR AND KILL FOR HIS COUNTRY. HAS HE COMMITTED MURDER? YES OR NO

2. WHEN THE GUY ASKED, DID HE ASKED THE QUESTION BASED ON MEDICAL TERMS AND/OR WHEN YOUR DEMI-god ANSWERED THE MASTUBATION QUESTION, DID HE ANSWER ON MEDICAL TERMS? YES OR NO

Answer these two kweshions and I will also answer you before the whole world reading. Thank you.